Benj wrote:I [find Lewis Little's] reply of May 04 to kt4ye [confusing, and I believe it may] be in error.

Faraday's law of induction correctly stated says that a current element J induces an E field (spherically) about itself according to the rate of change of that current. The direction of the E vector is identical with that of the current. If the current is increasing (positive derivative) then the E field (which has been termed the Electrokinetic E field for various reasons) is in the opposite direction to the current. Basically, the sign of the E field follows the negative of the sign of the derivative of the rate of change of current. It is that negative sign which constitutes Lenz's law. That makes Lenz's law a mathematical fact rather than a simple "rule of thumb".

Thus if one has a piece of wire with an increasing current, there is in space about that wire an E field directed oppositely to the current. That E field is also INSIDE the wire. There it cancels the E field that is trying to increase the current. This, then, tends to keep the current from increasing. This effect is well known and called inductance.

If a second wire loop lies near a first loop with increasing current, there will be an E field induced in that second loop in the opposite direction to the current in the first loop. This E field will try to induce a current in that second loop (which also has inductance) and will succeed to a degree in doing so. This current will be increasing and will be in the opposite direction to the first current. Since this second current is increasing it produces an E field back at the first wire in a direction opposite to it's source which is the second loop. And in this case that direction will be in the SAME direction as the original current. Hence the induced potential in the original wire will tend to INCREASE the current flow in that wire.

While this may seem to defy Lenz's law, it doesn't. The increasing current is actually due to some of the inductance of the first wire being canceled. In other words it's an effect like a shorted turn on a transformer or in another view, opposite currents in close-spaced wires create a non-inductive situation.

Hence in summary Lenz's law is due to the sign of the derivative of the current and when currents flow in opposite directions Lenz's law insures that the original current is increased rather than decreased due to cancellation of inductance.

Note that these arguments are made using classical Field theory and any questions of whether such fields are "real" or actually exist isn't considered here. The effects described by that model, however, clearly are real and exist.

The best manner in which to see how the Theory of Elementary Wave explains the generation of a current in one wire due to the change in the current in a neighboring wire is to imagine each wire as part of a very large loop. And, of course, each current would have to form a "loop" or there would be a buildup of charge somewhere. The analysis given in the book for Faraday's law then applies and explains the generation of current in the second "loop."

In my generation, Lenz's law wasn't taken as the law describing this effect, but was instead a "rule of thumb" to determine the direction in which an induced current would flow due to the change in another current. The induced current would itself change in a direction such as to generate an emf that would oppose the change to the initial current. I gather from the response to my initial post that the law is now understood as describing the overall process of induction. Of course, this "rule of thumb" assumes the validity of the laws governing induction.

The creation of an external magnetic field H will, in accordance with Lenz's law, induce in the molecule an electric current so directed that the magnetization of the equivalent magnet is opposed to the direction of the field.

Now in the dynamo the active wires are placed so that their length is at right angles to the field; hence when they are rotated and an electric current begins to flow under the E.M.F. which they induce, a mutual force at once arises between the copper conductors and the magnet, and the direction of this force must by Lenz's law be opposed to the direction of the movement.

in electromagnetism, statement that an induced electric current flows in a direction such that the current opposes the change that induced it. This law was deduced in 1834 by the Russian physicist Heinrich Friedrich Emil Lenz (1804–65).

Lenz's law ... is an extension of the law of conservation of energy to the non-conservative forces in electromagnetic induction. It can be used to give the direction of the induced electromotive force (emf) and current resulting from electromagnetic induction. The law provides a physical interpretation of the choice of sign in Faraday's law of induction, indicating that the induced emf and the change in flux have opposite signs. Heinrich Lenz formulated the law in 1834.

I'm sorry I did not adequately convey the non-trivial nature of this issue. It appears that Lenz's Law is neither predicted nor completely explained by classical electromagnetics. This is because Lenz's Law, when properly viewed using basic laws, seems to require a "dragging" field that is not found in classical EM.

Since this property seems similar to the "push" property of a vecton, I was hoping that Dr. Little might choose to illustrate Lenz's Law using vectons in a manner similar to his beautifully done "Joe Namath" example in the TEW book.

Joe Namath is riding in a convertible. He throws a pass directly to the side of the moving car. Relative to Mr. Namath, the car is, of course, not moving. Relative to the car—and because, being Joe Namath, the pass will be a perfect spiral—the football moves as shown in the left-hand portion of Figure 10.3. The oval-shaped football “points” directly along the line of motion of the football itself ....

This is not so much a causal law as a "rule-of-thumb" that can be used to determine the direction of induced changes to currents.

Actually, none of the basic laws of EM (and gravitation) seem to be "causal" laws. This is because the basic concept of causality is that a cause *must* precede the effect. A casual examination of our basic laws, such as Maxwell's Equations, shows that these are descriptive; not causal. Ignoring this basic concept has led to such silliness as E causes H and vice versa.

Independently, both Panofsky and Jefimenko determined that E and H both have common causes: charges and the flow of charges.

The physical laws involved remain those of electromagnetic theory. TEW reproduces those laws, and hence also Lenz's law.

This seems to be a slippery slope, since so much of electromagneic theory seems to be riddled with little holes. Benj has already pointed out a few. To say that TEW "reproduces" those laws seems to imply that TEW also replicates the flaws!

BTW, Prodos asked in a footnote about Jefimenko. The primary book of interest is "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation." In this, he notes the non-causal nature of Maxwell's Equations, derives a new set of Causal Equations based on Maxwell, and analyzes the impact of these new equations on EM theory. It is a "must read" for anyone concerned with the integrity of todays EM theory.

It appears that some of my comments have not been particularly clear in regard to Vectons.

So I wish to add a few points.

1. EM theory is a continuous theory while reality at the fundamental (quantum) level appears to not be continuous. Therefore Field theory is an approximate model to reality which only retains validity when there are sufficient numbers of quanta of various types to insure a reasonable approximation to a continuous field.

2. I find the Vecton concept particularly odd in that it appears to not have any model for it that makes physical sense. I'm not saying that it is required to have one, but the idea of constantly emitted particles with "explosives" that give impulses in directions other than that of momentum seems to need more explanation and modeling.

TEW book, Section 10.3, page 110: (emphasis added)First of all, because particles can be either positive or negative, vectons must have the capability either to “push” or “pull” on a charge upon impacting it, depending on its charge. So vectons cannot be described as carrying “momentum,” which would then be transferred to a second charge when the vecton “runs into it,” so to speak; the momentum of a particle necessarily points in the direction in which the particle is moving. Vectons must carry an internal property of some kind by virtue of which they impart a “jolt” to an absorbing particle along a direction determined by this internal property, not by the direction in which the vecton is moving.

A mechanical analogy would be that the vecton carries a small device that explodes upon impact, sending a jolt in a direction determined by the placement of the device. The various objects making up any real mechanical device would, of course, interact so as to conserve momentum, so this is at best an analogy.

Imagine, then, that a vecton carries a little “push-vector” pointing in a direction determined by the inner structure of the vecton. A vecton “jolts” a positive charge in the direction of that push-vector, a negative charge in the opposite direction. Suppose in addition that ....

3. Vecton theory is clearly an attempt to extend continuous field theory into the quantum realm, but in the end when numbers of quanta are sufficent the two must agree.

4. The Vecton theory is especially interesting in that in the case of Faraday induction where we find a situation as odd as that of the Vecton. If we have a current element dl and the current in that element is increasing or decreasing, there is thrown into space about that element an electric field E. Which is called Induction. That E field lies in a direction parallel or anti-parallel to the current source. It maintains that direction throughout the entire spherical volume about the source. And the magnitude of E falls off as 1/R. This is what I was talking about in a previous post. The angle the E field makes with the radius vector from the source to any point about source current is very reminiscent of vectons! It is another case of where the force is not along the radius vector. And furthermore, any model as to just how this induced E field springs from a CHANGING current source and goes into space at the speed of light so far as I know doesn't exist. The parallel with vectons is however fascinating.

5. And lastly I would suggest that one serious problem with the vecton proposal is that there seems to be no independent observation of such "particles". For example: One can propose "photons" as a quantum mechanism for light. But then the question of "existence" of such objects comes up. As it turns out one can simply lower the intensity of a light beam by an extreme amount and raise the detector sensitivity until these quanta actually can be observed. The point I'm making is that there needs to be some similar experimental evidence found that allows the direct (or even indirect) observation of vectons or they will be doomed to remain some interesting but unreal mathematical construct.

Dr Lewis Little: I'm not sure if I understand what [Benj is] saying when [he says]---as I interpret [his] statements---that the force due to an element of current is parallel to the current element. If I am interpreting Benj's statements correctly, then this is incorrect. Please clarify.

If I may elaborate. What I'm saying easily comes out of the classical Neumann formula for mutual inductance.

If you work the double integrals around a bit you can see that an electric field E (termed the electrokinetic field) at a given point in space is determined by the integration of the current source over its path. (which is actually a calculation of the rate of change of the magnetic vector potential A). The final EMF is then found by second integration of the path E.dl at the induced voltage.

Looking at the Neumann formula separated in this manner we find that the rate of change of each element of current dJ produces at any point of interest about it an electric field E proportional to that rate of change falling off as 1/R from dJ. E and J are vectors and they are both parallel. This is true no matter what point chosen around dJ. E is retarded from dJ due to the speed of light and the distance.

However, while Figure 10.8 illustrates induction (vectons) traveling straight across from a current source (dJ) in one loop to the other loop, I suggest that if one used the SAME source current but changed to calculate the E field induced at the bottom of the loop one would find that the direction of the force is STILL down and since it is perpendicular to the wire no emf would be induced by that source-secondary pair of points.

The "vecton" question in my mind is not the way vecton theory produces correct results, but just what kind of mechanism a vecton would be. For example if we have a radial line between two points (say the dJ and the dL) one can easily imagine a particle producing a force vector (momentum transfer) along that line. But this phenomena requires an odd situation where a direction set at dJ (by the current direction) is duplicated by the force that occurs at a distance (the E field direction) at dL. I am having trouble trying to imagine what kind of physical mechanism could possibly produce such an odd result.

For more details on Faraday Induction and the electrokinetic E field, I urge examining the book "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation: A Different Approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields," by Oleg D. Jefimenko which is available inexpensively from Amazon.com.

============Moderator:

Minor reformatting. Minor typo fixed but not shown. Figures from TEW book added.

2. I find the Vecton concept particularly odd in that it appears to not have any model for it that makes physical sense. I'm not saying that it is required to have one, but the idea of constantly emitted particles with "explosives" that give impulses in directions other than that of momentum seems to need more explanation and modeling.

I am also troubled by this aspect of Dr. Little's vecton. But, at the risk of being "laughed off" the list, let me suggest a possible "physical" configuration that might explain the unusual interaction postulated for the vecton.

First, let us consider a vecton consisting of two equal "particles" that are orbiting around each other. This might provide the "spin" associated with the "Joe Namath" explanation.

From TEW book: Joe Namath is riding in a convertible. He throws a pass directly to the side of the moving car. Relative to Mr. Namath, the car is, of course, not moving. Relative to the car—and because, being Joe Namath, the pass will be a perfect spiral—the football moves as shown in the left-hand portion of Figure 10.3. The oval-shaped football “points” directly along the line of motion of the football itself ....

But it does nothing to explain the impulse-like attraction or repulsion that occurs at the point of impact.

However, let us now consider what might happen if the "particles," in addition to orbiting each other, are also rotating around their own individual axes. More particularly, they are rotating in opposite directions. (To visualize this, imagine an old-fashioned clothes wringer -- but a good deal smaller! )

In this configuration, on "impact," if the particles are rotating "inwardly," the effect would be "attraction." Alternately, if the particles are rotating "outwardly," the effect would "repulsion."

Naturally there are multitudes of orientation possibilites between the "spin" and the co-rotations of the two particles. It could be argued that impacts between the vecton and the target might happen with a random orientation. This would lead to an indeterminacy as to whether a given vecton is "attractive" or "repulsive." A dismal idea indeed!

But this would never happen because the vecton is "riding" an elementary wave, and is thus phase-locked to it. Thus, once a vecton was launched, it would always arrive in the correct orientation to either attract or repulse the target.

I now await the jeers and giggles.

Bill

==================================Moderator:

Subject line changed.

As noted by author, post offers highly speculative mechanism of what is already a highly speculative concept (i.e. the vecton). But since idea is presented with sincere scientific intent and appropriate reservations, felt was okay and reasonable to put through. Will leave this to Dr Little's discretion.=====================